Abusive Landlord Hit With Emotional Distress and Punitive Damage Award By Bankruptcy Court
A recent decision by the Third Circuit should serve as a clear warning to overly-aggressive landlords who are dealing with bankrupt tenants. In Lansaw v Zokaites (In re Lansaw) U.S. App. Lexis 6121 (3d Cir. 2017), the appellate court affirmed awards of emotional distress damages and punitive damages against a landlord who demonstrably went way over the line in dealing with his bankrupt tenants.
Debtors Garth and Deborah Lansaw operated a daycare center in premises owned by Frank Zokaites. Disputes arose, and the Lansaws signed a lease with a different landlord. Zokaites did not take this well and served a notice of distraint, claiming a lien against the Lansaws’ property for unpaid rent. The Lansaws responded by filing bankruptcy.
Under §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §362, filing a bankruptcy automatically causes an injunction (the so-called “automatic stay”) to go into effect. This automatic stay forbids any party from pursuing any action against the debtor or against the debtor’s property.** A willful violation of the automatic stay is a contempt of court and subjects the creditor to actual damages and, in appropriate circumstances, punitive damages.
The Incident(s) In Question
Zokaites’ actions went way over this bright line. First, after the bankruptcy was filed, he arrived at the Daycare premises during business hours, entered the office of Mrs. Lansaw, backed her against the wall close enough for her to feel his breath, and repeatedly asked her “Do you want to hit me?” Next, he visited the premises after business hours and padlocked the door. When the Lansaws removed the chains, he took their keys, including personal keys, and left the premises. Finally, Zokaites got in touch with the new landlord and threatened him with a complaint if he would not terminate his lease with the Lansaws.
Issue Before the Third Circuit
The Third Circuit noted that §362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual injured by a willful violation of the automatic stay may recover actual damages “and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.” The issue before the court, however, was whether the term “actual damages” included the emotional distress damages which the Lansaws had sought. The court concluded that Congress intended the automatic stay to protect both financial and nonfinancial interests. It, therefore, joined “a growing number of circuits” in determining that emotional distress damages resulting from a willful violation of the automatic stay were in fact contemplated by the statute. Moreover, the court declined to require corroborating medical evidence in all cases of emotional distress damages, finding sufficient evidence of emotional distress in Zokaites’ actions. As the Court noted:
“But, at least where the evidence also shows that the stay violations were patently egregious, a plaintiff’s credible testimony that the violations did in fact cause emotional distress is sufficient to support an award of damages.”
The court therefore affirmed an award of $7500 for emotional distress damages and further affirmed a $40,000 award for punitive damages – all based upon Zokaites’ conduct.
The Bottom Line
All creditors get significantly annoyed, if not violently angry when their playmates and other business contacts go bankrupt on them. Nevertheless, caution should always be exercised. Bankruptcy judges take very seriously their obligation to protect the interests of debtors, and actions that go over the line will invariably draw the court’s ire. It’s always best to seek competent bankruptcy counsel from an attorney and not to let your spleen dictate your actions.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.
**The quip used in bankruptcy circles is, “If you’re thinking of taking any action against a bankrupt, and what you’re thinking of doing might tend to make you smile, DON’T DO IT!” You’ll find yourself standing before a federal judge, who will politely ask if you have your toothbrush in your pocket (because you’re not going to be sleeping at home that night).
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
What Can You Learn From Lansaw v Zokaites?
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
Abusive Landlord Hit With Emotional Distress and Punitive Damage Award By Bankruptcy Court
A recent decision by the Third Circuit should serve as a clear warning to overly-aggressive landlords who are dealing with bankrupt tenants. In Lansaw v Zokaites (In re Lansaw) U.S. App. Lexis 6121 (3d Cir. 2017), the appellate court affirmed awards of emotional distress damages and punitive damages against a landlord who demonstrably went way over the line in dealing with his bankrupt tenants.
Debtors Garth and Deborah Lansaw operated a daycare center in premises owned by Frank Zokaites. Disputes arose, and the Lansaws signed a lease with a different landlord. Zokaites did not take this well and served a notice of distraint, claiming a lien against the Lansaws’ property for unpaid rent. The Lansaws responded by filing bankruptcy.
Under §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §362, filing a bankruptcy automatically causes an injunction (the so-called “automatic stay”) to go into effect. This automatic stay forbids any party from pursuing any action against the debtor or against the debtor’s property.** A willful violation of the automatic stay is a contempt of court and subjects the creditor to actual damages and, in appropriate circumstances, punitive damages.
The Incident(s) In Question
Zokaites’ actions went way over this bright line. First, after the bankruptcy was filed, he arrived at the Daycare premises during business hours, entered the office of Mrs. Lansaw, backed her against the wall close enough for her to feel his breath, and repeatedly asked her “Do you want to hit me?” Next, he visited the premises after business hours and padlocked the door. When the Lansaws removed the chains, he took their keys, including personal keys, and left the premises. Finally, Zokaites got in touch with the new landlord and threatened him with a complaint if he would not terminate his lease with the Lansaws.
Issue Before the Third Circuit
The Third Circuit noted that §362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual injured by a willful violation of the automatic stay may recover actual damages “and, in appropriate circumstances, may recover punitive damages.” The issue before the court, however, was whether the term “actual damages” included the emotional distress damages which the Lansaws had sought. The court concluded that Congress intended the automatic stay to protect both financial and nonfinancial interests. It, therefore, joined “a growing number of circuits” in determining that emotional distress damages resulting from a willful violation of the automatic stay were in fact contemplated by the statute. Moreover, the court declined to require corroborating medical evidence in all cases of emotional distress damages, finding sufficient evidence of emotional distress in Zokaites’ actions. As the Court noted:
“But, at least where the evidence also shows that the stay violations were patently egregious, a plaintiff’s credible testimony that the violations did in fact cause emotional distress is sufficient to support an award of damages.”
The court therefore affirmed an award of $7500 for emotional distress damages and further affirmed a $40,000 award for punitive damages – all based upon Zokaites’ conduct.
The Bottom Line
All creditors get significantly annoyed, if not violently angry when their playmates and other business contacts go bankrupt on them. Nevertheless, caution should always be exercised. Bankruptcy judges take very seriously their obligation to protect the interests of debtors, and actions that go over the line will invariably draw the court’s ire. It’s always best to seek competent bankruptcy counsel from an attorney and not to let your spleen dictate your actions.
Are you a creditor in a bankruptcy? Have you been sued by a bankrupt? If you have any questions about your rights, please contact me, Joel Glucksman, at 201-806-3364.
**The quip used in bankruptcy circles is, “If you’re thinking of taking any action against a bankrupt, and what you’re thinking of doing might tend to make you smile, DON’T DO IT!” You’ll find yourself standing before a federal judge, who will politely ask if you have your toothbrush in your pocket (because you’re not going to be sleeping at home that night).
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
